Sentient beings in general don't evolve because they intentionally choose their mates.
Christians in particular don't "evolve" because Christian ethics permit the less fit to breed and contaminate the gene pool.
27 comments
Nah, this is pretty secular fundie for suggesting that non-believers are genetically superior to christians, which condradicts the first sentence for saying that free will is a factor in our mating rituals
He's a believer though, according to his faith symbol, so I wouldn't call this secular fundy.
I agree that this isn't fundie so much as it is wrong and WTF-inducing. And maybe a parody.
From the second page of the thread,
I_Love_Cheese says:
"I'm thinking this is a Parody thread, but if it's not?
Probably ought to go over to FSTDT to see if they have any idea."
<<< Sentient beings in general don't evolve because they intentionally choose their mates. >>>
This shows a misunderstanding of evolution.
<<< Christians in particular don't "evolve" because Christian ethics permit the less fit to breed and contaminate the gene pool. >>>
This shows an even bigger one. Evolution and eugenics are completely separate. (In fact, most of eugenics was based on poor understanding of genetics in the first place.)
The first line is so incredibly wrong it hurts thinking about it. Sexual selection is one of the key drivers in evolution, Darwin wrote entire books around it as well as key chapters in Origin of the Species and most of The Descent of Man.
I can't believe this idiot thinks things that are relatively brainless and release all their sperm and eggs in a synchronised spawning cycle will result in the proliferation of more positive mutations than choosing the father (generally) you like best and passing his characteristics onto your offspring.
Oh wait - it's a fundie - people are sentient, creatures with brains the size of a pea that can navigate halfway round the world to the nest site, river etc where they grew up AREN'T!
I think he is a Christian being sarcastic, saying that evolution has no ethics, suvival of the fittest and all that, and Christians ethic by contrast does not discriminate against the weak. He is taking the language of what he imagines to be his enemies to make a sarcastic point. To bad he confused evolution with eugenics.
The first sentence I think is intended seriously. It displays a large lack of understanding of evolution, but not an extraordinary one for fundie standards.
"Sentient beings in general don't evolve because they intentionally choose their mates."
But THAT'S how evolution works jackass!
"Christians in particular don't "evolve" because Christian ethics permit the less fit to breed and contaminate the gene pool."
Ironically, his first statement confirms this one.
Intellectualy Christians are evolving, look at the creationism movement.
Teach the Bible as 100% corect
6 day creationism
always in present form
creation science
ID
teach both sides
just remove evolution
evolution is religion
Well, its the evolution if ignorance.
Line one: er, yeah, and we *never* choose based on traits such as strength, intelligence, or beauty. Nothing being selected for there.
Line two: ???
Is this a secular fundie, or a very confused Christian?
To some degree modern medicine diminishes natural selection.
I wouldn't say it "diminishes" natural selection; that doesn't really make sense, because organisms' survival is in part dependent upon their environment, and naturally their survival may be easier or harder depending on circumstances (whether they are circumstances created by the species itself, in the example of our medical technology, or something more external, like weather). Natural selection is a mechanism, not a quantity or ratio. (If you want to quantify things you could talk of course about percentage of surviving/reproducing individuals and such, but that's different than natural selection). Like if there were a lot of acorns one year, and therefore more squirrels could survive to adulthood than normally, you wouldn't say that natural selection was diminished, does that make sense? Natural selection is working just as it always has!
What you can say, certainly, is that many of our technologies allow a wider range of individuals to survive and reproduce. Sometimes people interpret this to mean, "We broke evolution/natural selection," but that's a bit like saying we broke the laws of gravity by going to the moon. If anything, the fact that there is then a wider gene pool (and also that our technologies allow us to travel, allowing previously isolated populations to meet) would increase the rate of change in our species, not "stop" evolution.
Sorry, tangent. I like to be pedantic and nitpicky sometimes. But I think these are important distinctions. :)
Anyway, the guy is basically wrong about chosing mates. People mate with whoever is near them. We do not select from the 6 billion people on the planet, but more like from the 1000 (being overly generous) people we meet in a year who we might think of as mating material.
Let's see, 1000 divided by 3 billion (half the total population).
We only chose from about 0.0000033...% of the total available pool of humans. It's really stretching it to call this a choice.
That certainly explains things... things like creation "science"; slogans like "God said it, I believe it, that settles it"; and the literal interpretation of a book whose only source of corroboration it itself.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.